The UK Eurofighter the aircraft with a gun that cannot fire.

#3
This is a typical example of people who don't have frontline experience championing technology over reality. If Typhoon is supposed to be all-singing-all-dancing, then a gun would be pretty useful for close-support missions against ground targets. You can't always use a missile to solve problems. And who's going to expend a warhead worth tens of thousands of pounds on say, a "technical" pick-up truck with a mortar base-plate in the back? Brassing up such targets with cannon fire is a lot more cost-effective. It also(and I speak as one who has cowered in terror under air attack)has a hell of an impact on the opposition's morale at the receiving end.
 
#6
Now Typhoon is supposed to be replacing Jaguar as well isn't it?

Seem to remember 6 and 41? Sqdn Jaguars gunning up lots of targets during Granby, so Cannon on aircraft must be useful, hence the reason the Americans hang them on all their fighters.

But I'm sure TCH knows better.

Maybe our 2 winged lurkers can give us a case for gun/no gun on Eurofighter ?
 
#7
I see the Eurofighter everyday (my house is under the flight path the the BAE plant at Warton. The capabilities of this aircraft are far in advance of anything the RAF currently posseses, and I iften get to talk to RAF Pilots undergoing Typhoon conversion at the Warton plant, all of who have nothing but praise for the aircraft. I also get to see it low flying in the lakes and doing manovers over the Ribble esturyand all I can say is that it is possibly one of the most manoverable and powerful planes in the air today. As for the cannon, if memory serves correct it was left out my the civil servents in procurment for some lame reason and was bolted on only after senior RAF staff intervention. If you think the Eurofighter is a lame duck would someone here like to suggest an alternetive which manages to incorperate the technology needed by a modern warplane?
 
#8
The yanks learnt the lesson in Vietnam. Some bright spark thought guns were passe and belonged to the WWII era. Combat experience in 'nam proved otherwise, so guns made it back on to aircraft.

Reminds me of the muppets who decided to take the 50 cal away...and now we have it back, or those who think the good old bayonet is buckshee.
 
#9
Its not the fact that they can't be used but why use them as ballast in the first place. Its not like any other Aircraft the UK had bought had similar problems, well apart from the Tornados (blue circle fighter) with its cement radar . That went on for years but short term a block of readymix was used.

The boffins can't even make a copy of the weapon out of bits an bobs? what kind of boffind do we have?

"UK Boffin stops Boffing" - whats the IA for that?
 
#10
What they'll doubtless find out in due course is that the aircraft only performs to spec with a gun fitted, but with the ammunition for the gun as part of that aerodynamic package. Only problem is, no one will have permission to fire it. It's ridiculous not to give what appears to be a fine aircraft the capability for strafing runs. The savings on ammo are miniscule compared to the billions being wasted elsewhere.
 
#12
I dont quite understand this.

Is the Gun going to be fitted, but not 'connected up' and therefore inoperable?

Or is it going to be fitted and operable, but no ammunition is going to be bought for it?

Either way....
you couldn't make it up!
 
#13
danvnuk said:
I dont quite understand this.

Is the Gun going to be fitted, but not 'connected up' and therefore inoperable?

Or is it going to be fitted and operable, but no ammunition is going to be bought for it?

Either way....
you couldn't make it up!
Welcome to Monty Python's Flying MoD :roll:
 
#14
If you think this is bad - just wait till FRES makes an appearance (when / if it ever gets of the drawing board...

:evil:

Why do so many of these idiots still have jobs - in civvy street they would be sacked for gross incompetance
 

X-Inf

War Hero
Book Reviewer
#15
old_bloke said:
So all 232 of the RAF's Eurofighter/Typhoon aircraft will be fitted with the gun at a cost of £90 million - but in order to save what is now a mere £2.5 million they will have no rounds to fire.
This is to keep the PC brigade happy. Can't have our Boys shooting at people threatening our Country.

Bring back the Sopwith Camel, at least the pilot could shoot.
 
#16
but with the ammunition for the gun as part of that aerodynamic package.
Simple. Put wings on the gun and forget the rest of the sh1t. Save a fortune.

Aerodynamic guns ffs......... What next?
Hydrodynamic bayonets......... Tossers.

Now there's a thought..

Give the army aerodynamic guns. Scrap the RAF
Give the army hydrodynamic bayonets. Scrap the RN

Money saved to be used to boost army recruiting and retention by offering MP/consultant/solicitor/footballer remuneration levels.








Oh blx - someone's just woken me up
 
#17
Nowt wrong with the gun, the point is (if you read the article carefully, as the Torygraph have done their best to mangle the story) that they've not bought any ammo to save money(!) The original probby was that, years ago, the MoD thought it would be a saving not to have a gun "because they aren't used in modern air warfare". They discovered that, if the weight was taken out, not surprisingly it shagged the weight-and-balance sums.

Clearly, said the Snivel Servants, just put a few bricks there instead! It was then pointed out that the weight would have to be the same shape as the gun for aerodynamic reasons. Fortunately they now decided that spending yet more money on making a non-gun of exactly the same shape and weight of the gun was too weird even for them. It was therefore decided to have a gun again.

Obviously, the Treasury ran off clutching the original decision that the gun wasn't needed (a decision taken because they were too stingy) and have now popped up to say they can't buy any choccies for it.
 
#18
This decision is yet another example why the MoD should not be allowed near procurement decisions. Some unaccountable civil servant makes a decision and regardless of it being patently stupid - it sticks. I bet the MoD have spent more money in people's salaries defending this insanity than they've saved. Probably spent more on overpriced chairs for their over budget gin palace in London. But hey, they all work really hard so the fact they produce nothing and actively destroy capability through ignorance and incompetence is OK.

And if you think I'm being harsh, just talk to someone in the RAF ....
 
#19
Sorry Escape-from-PPRuNe,

The weapon system in question is built into the aircraft. its not out there on a pylon or an external pack.Its on board. The ain't tying a brick or a few breeze blocks to one of the wings.

Its utter twaddle to say that you cannot get some material of the same size and weight and mass and all those other physicy things as the real thing . At a few bob less.


So far this year I have read about the Hellfire that cannot be launched from one side of the Apache, the Chinooks that cannot fly in cloud and now this . Who the hell is running these programmes Billy Smart of CoCo the Clown.
 
#20
Clearly, said the Snivel Servants, just put a few bricks there instead! It was then pointed out that the weight would have to be the same shape as the gun for aerodynamic reasons.
EfP,
Now I'll admit I haven't designed an aeroplane lately (OK, I've never designed one) BUT FFS an aerodynamic gun that has to be exactly replicated if not fitted? This has surely got to be a joke, a misunderstanding, or an almighty FU.
This aeroplane is so sensitive that if you remove a bit (like when you fire a missile, or use up some fuel, or let off a few rounds of said gat) it needs a redesign that costs more than a regiment of challies?

Politics, snow, bullshit, FUD, spring to mind.

In any event Buff, just give 'em the fcuking bullets before you get yours.
 

Latest Threads

Top